The true merits of a late treatise, printed in America, intitled, Common sense: clearly pointed out. Addressed to the inhabitants of America. By a late member of the Continental Congress, a native of a republican state.

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- PREFACE.

The TRUE MERIT OF COMMON SENSE, &c.

A Piece, entitled Common Sense, addressed to the Inhabitants of America, being lately re-printed at Charles-Town, and great Pains taken to spread the Notion of Independency from Great Britain, and to form an American Republick, it becomes the Business of every Person most seriously to consider the Tendency of such a Proposal; and all such as look upon it as ruinous and destructive, must at least be inexcusable, in their own Breasts, if they do not endeavour to point out the many Mistakes and Oddities on which that Pamphlet is grounded.

The Novelty of the Thing, the Aversion a free-born People must ever have to submit to what they think Slavery, the Fears of being brought to an abject Submission to oppressive Laws, the Dread of being deprived of Property, and perhaps of Life, with a Variety of other Considerations, may have given this Pamphlet, with many Persons, a Degree of Weight which does not appear due to its intrinsic Merit; and perhaps it may, without Impropriety, be said, that their Extent of Reading has not led the Generality of Americans to a very accurate and extensive Acquaintance with the Subject in Question; however that be, it is supposed in a Matter of such infinite Moment, every confiderate Man would wish to be thoroughly informed of what may be said on both Sides of this Question.

If my Conjectures of the Author do not deceive me, he is a Gentleman for whom I have a real Esteem; but "the Wise and Worthy need not the Triumph of a Pamphlet;" and therefore, without any Apology, I will venture to submit some of his and my Remarks to the Judgment of every impartial Reader.

What Reasons may have induced the Author to send his Thoughts abroad, under the Title of Common Sense, is needless to enquire; if he means that his Opinion is the Common Sense of all America, or that all those who do not think with him are destitute of Common Sense, Time, without any Reasoning, may convince him of his Mistake.

I conceive his Notions about Society and Government are only introductory to his main View; I shall take no further Notice of them, than, as they appear to me, to lay a very indifferent Foundation for a very indifferent Building.

Supposing, as he asserts, there were "a Difference between Society and Government, and their Origins very different," he will hardly be able to conceive Society subsisting without Government; and tho' Society be reduced to its smallest Number, yet even two Persons, probably, could not live long happily together, without agreeing upon some Rule of Conduct, which is, in other Words, submitting to some Government. The Author begins with giving us a very discouraging Idea of Government in any Shape. The first Notion of Government which this Founder of American Independency proceeds upon is, that "it is produced by our Wickedness," and, in its best State, "is a necessary Evil." I am greatly afraid the Government he proposes must be the Product of our Wickedness, but I cannot yet agree with him, "that it is a necessary Evil."

To give us a clear Idea of the Design and End of Government, he supposes "a small Number of Persons settled in some sequestred Part of the Earth; he then forms them into Society, then represents them as relaxing in Duty and Attachment, (Page 4,) and then forming themselves into Government, to supply the Defect of Moral Virtue." I would ask him, whence those first Settlers came? by what Means they reached the sequestred Country? and whether they must not have agreed on Emigration, a Place of Destiny, and a Method of proceeding? that is to say, whether there was not some Society and Government unavoidably among them; and whether they must not be considered in a State of Society and Government, prior to any Formation of it, in the Method asserted by this Author? It seems more natural to conceive the Origin of Society and Government in the following Method: Of all Human Beings, one must have been the first, and prior, of Consequence, to Society. The first Human Being, we are accordingly informed by Revelation, was a Man, and God saw it was not good for him to be alone, Gen. ii. 18. It is expressly said, that Woman was created with a View to bring Man into a State of Society, Gen. ii. 18. His Priority of Existence, and the Manner of her Formation, and being brought unto Man, must have rendered her in some Measure dependent on Adam, even while they both continued in their original Perfection. By the express Will of the Creator, the Government was established in the Man, Gen. iii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 22. and being the Ruler of his Wife, he necessarily became also the Ruler of his Children; and from this very natural View of the Matter it would seem, that Government and Society are nearly coeval, and that the very first Mode of Government must have resembled Monarchy more than any other. From this it will by no Means follow, that the first Man was the absolute Sovereign of all his Posterity, or that Monarchy is the only Government of Divine Institution; but as it is impossible that Society and Government could have commenced any other Way, so to subject all Men to one, or the Head of a Family, is contradictory in itself; for if Fatherhood gives an absolute Power over the Children, then it rests in all Parents, and, consequently, had Seth commanded his Children to have resisted Adam, they would, on this Scheme, have been obliged to do it, tho' by another Part of it, they were obliged to unlimited Obedience to Adam. I therefore perfectly agree with the Author, when he saith, "Whatever Form of Government appears most likely to ensure us Security, with the least Expence, and greatest Benefit, is preferable to all others;" and all I plead for is, that in some Instances Monarchy has done this, and may do this as much as any Form, whenever the Monarch makes the good of his Subjects his principal Study and Endeavour. It is a Fact, (tho' I am far from recommending an Imitation of the Example,) that since Denmark made their King absolute, they have, for a Century, been happier, and better governed, than they had been for a Century, or perhaps ever before. If I were to form a Judgment of the Author's Skill and Depth of Thought, as to the Nature of Government, from his Definition of it, I confess I should be under some Difficulty; he certainly must have an undoubted Right to claim it, as being entirely original. "It is, (saith he,) pray what? It is a Mode, a Mode rendered necessary by the Inability of Moral Virtue, to govern the World." There may be Meaning in this, but all I can pick out is, that Government is not a Substance, but a Mode. A very rare and sagacious Discovery.

If his Maxim, "That the more simple a thing is, the less it is liable to be disordered, and the easier repaired," which is undoubtedly a very true one, be applied, as it is by him, to Government, I should think it must plead for Monarchy. The simplest Idea that can be formed of Government, is one to rule, and one or more to obey; the most perfect Government is where the most perfect Being rules, and all his good Creatures implicitly and perfectly obey; and tho' no such Government can obtain among sinful Men, yet certainly Monarchy is much more simple than Aristocracy or Democracy. This the Author could not help being aware of, and allows, but in perfect Contradiction to the Principle on which he sets out, calls "absolute," i. e. the most simple Government, "a Disgrace to Human Nature;" then declares, almost in the same Breath, that "such Governments have an Advantage not to be found in any other Form, and least of all in the British Constitution." If his "first Idea of Government, is derived from a Principle in Nature, which no Art can overturn; that the Firmness of a Government lies in its Simplicity; and that all Governments that are complex, of Course are precarious," then every judicious Reader must observe, that the whole Treatise is a constant Contradiction to the Principle on which the Author builds the Whole of his Plan and Assertions. He sets out with an Assertion, that Simplicity is essential to Permanency, and then writes a Treatise against that Simplicity, and proposes a Plan of Government far more complex, and consequently far more unnatural, than those he pretends to abolish.

As the Author's great Aim is to overthrow the Constitution, and to build something, at present unknown even to himself, on its Ruins, he accordingly next labours to cure us of the Prejudices which hitherto we entertained in its Favour; if he has succeeded, or does succeed in the Attempt, I must ascribe it to a Maxim he advances, and I can look upon as true only on this Supposition, "Time makes more Converts than Reason." Let us hear him: "To say that the Constitution of England is a Union of three Powers, checking each other, is farcical; either the Words have no Meaning, or they are a flat Contradiction." Now, that the three different Branches of the Legislature are, and always have been, a Check upon each other, History clearly proves; of all Proofs, Facts afford the strongest, and what exists, implies neither Farce, Unmeaning, nor Contradiction. "The Prerogative, (saith Rapin,) of the Sovereign, of the Nobles, and of the People, are corrected by each other, in such a Manner, that they are one another's mutual Support; and at the same Time either of those three Powers can lay invincible Obstacles in the Way of whatever Enterprizes one of the other two, or even both together could form, to make themselves independent."

Where is the Absurdity of the Supposition, "that a King, (or any Man, or Sett of Men,) ought not to be trusted without being looked after." It may be very reasonable to put it in a Man's Power to do Good, and yet to restrain him from doing Harm: This cannot hurt the best Man, and may be some Security against the worst; it may happen, "that the Commons may be wiser and more worthy of Confidence than the Crown," and it may also happen otherwise, and the only Remedy that can be proposed is precisely that which the Author turns into Ridicule, i. e. to make Crown and Commons mutual Checks upon each other. There is something exceedingly confused in the Paragraph where the Author labours to shew the Ridicule of Monarchy, and hard to determine what he means by the "different Parts of it, which unnaturally oppose and destroy each other." The Folly of any Man, in any Condition, may "shut him from the World, and the Means of Information;" his State need not. The present Emperor, and King of Prussia, are probably more minutely acquainted with the State of their Dominions than any one of their Subjects; I should think an English King also might be at Liberty to read Common Sense, or a News-Paper.

To his Question, "How came the King by a Power which the People are afraid to trust, and always are obliged to check;" I answer, all Power that is not under the Guidance of infinite Wisdom needs checking: But, because it is unsafe to trust a Ruler with unlimited Power, is he to be without any Power at all? Or, because there can be no Ruling where there is no Power, is it therefore necessary or prudent to entrust him with Power without Limits? We have two Instances at least where the Commons checked and stopt the Power of the Crown, and thus restored and preserved the Liberty of the Subject; and the Remark of Rapin is very judicious: "If the Parliament had been contented with re-establishing the Government upon its ancient Foundation, it is very likely it had never afterwards been easily shaken, but it is very hard to observe a just Medium upon such Occasions. This was the very thing which won the King Friends, which he had infallibly been without if the Ballance had been held with a steady Hand." This Observation of a Foreigner may even now deserve particular Attention.

If the Author is an Englishman, it must be owned he has pretty well got the better of the National Pride and Reason of an Englishman; and so little Merit has the Constitution in his Eyes, that he would have us believe it as a plain Truth, "that it is wholly owing to the Constitution of the People, and not to the Constitution of the Government, that the Crown is not so oppressive in England, as in Turkey." As to the Constitution of the People, it is certain that the Turks killed more of their Emperors, than ever the English did of their Kings; and if the Author can think Turkish Despotism preferable to the English Constitution, it may serve as a Hint of what may be expected of a Government formed upon his Principles.

The Proposition, that "Mankind are originally Equals in the Order of Creation," extended as far as it may lead, is a very levelling Principle. There are some natural Distinctions which cannot fail having very great Effects; one Man is born sooner than another, and all Men certainly not equal in Point of Sense and bodily Strength; some have greater Opportunities to advance themselves than others, and from such Circumstances, however accidental, some Superiority almost insensibly takes Place; and though Kings and Subjects are not a Distinction of Nature, yet that some should rule, and others obey, is essential to Society. No Society can subsist without Government, and no Government without Rule and Obedience; and however Nature may put a Ridicule upon hereditary Succession, "by giving an Ass for a Lion," it must be owned that some seem by Nature formed to rule, and others to obey; some by a happy Mould to amend the Errors of old, and establish new Forms of Government, like our Author; and others, implicitly to acquiesce in any Government, whether under the Direction of a Monarch, or our Author.

Heaven and Hell have their Governments. —"Male and Female are Distinctions of Nature;" but I suppose the Author would not give up the Government of the Male to the Female Part of the Creation; and if the Female will not give it up to the Male, which (Mankind being all equal in the Order of the Creation) they surely need not, then there will be War, and this War must continue as long as both Parties are able to carry it on, and destroy all Society, i. e. all Mankind in the End, or else issue in the Submission of one to the other, or Independency, and Separation of both. To establish a perfect Equality in Sentiment and Power, will be found too difficult among imperfect Beings.

As every Argument that has an Appearance of Scripture to support it, with many Persons, is decisive, the Author makes no small use of it against Kings and Kingly Government; it will be very easy to shew that his Remarks prove nothing less than what is intended.

"In the early Ages there were no Kings and consequently no Wars." Let him remember, that War is mentioned before Kings; no Kings are mentioned before the Flood, but nevertheless the Earth was full of Violence, Gen. vi. 15.

I do not know how Holland came in, in Support of this Assertion, but so it is that he immediately adds, "Holland, without a King, has enjoyed more Peace for the last Century, than any of the Monarchical Governments in Europe." Either he must never have read History, or think no Body else ever did. This Assertion of his must either establish his gross Ignorance, or for ever sink his Character, as a Writer of Candour, or Man of Veracity.

"The quiet and rural Life of the first Patriarchs," was not so entirely so as the Author pretends; there was Murder before there were Kings, Abraham was concerned in War, and there subsisted Strife between him and Lot, so that the Land could not bear them, Gen. xiii. 6, 7. "If Government by Kings was first introduced by the Heathens," yet we read very early of one that was a King of Peace and Righteousness, and compared to the Son of God; and if the Heathens paid divine Honours to their deceased Kings, probably it was because they were good Kings and Benefactors; but it will never warrant the Author to say, that the "Christians pay greater, and diviner Honours to their King while yet living," than the Heathens did who worshipped them after their Death.

I call it a daring Assertion, when the Author saith, (Page 11,) "The Will of the Almighty expressly disapproves of Government by Kings." Tho' he stiles the Passage, Render therefore unto Caesar the Things which are Caesar's, "the Scripture Doctrine of Courts;" they are not the less the Words of him, all whose Words are faithful and true; and those who would judge properly of the Merit of his Assertion, need only be at the Trouble of reading a single Passage, viz. "Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Men, for the Lord's Sake, to the King as supreme," 1 Pet. ii. 13; and when he observes, that at the Time of our Saviour, "the Jews were without a "King," he errs, because he attends not to the Scripture. The Jews, as a Nation, then avowed, We have no King but Caesar, John xix. 15; and he has not mended the Matter, by adding, that "they were in a State of Vassalage to the Romans," i. e. they had no King, but were Vassals to the Roman Emperor.

The History of Israel, under the Judges, is not the clearest Part of their History; it is as full fraught with Wickedness and Confusion as the Annals of most of their Kings; and it does not add much to the Honour of his favourite Proposition, that some of their worst Transactions are introduced with the Remark, "At that Time there was no King in Israel," Judges xviii. 1, and xix. 1.; and that it is twice repeated in the same Book, "There was no King in Israel, and every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes," Judges xviii. 6, and xxi. 25. When he saith, "Monarchy (perhaps he meant the establishing of it) is ranked in Scripture as one of the Sins of the Jews, for which a Curse in Reserve is denounced against them," I should have been glad to see the last Part supported by some Quotation. Of the Transactions he alludes to, I shall take some Notice:

In the Case of Gideon, I would observe, that "Rule thou over us," and "Be thou our King," are not equivalent Expressions; there may be Rule without Kingship; and though the Author is bitter against Kings, I suppose he will allow that, without any Impiety, some may rule and others obey their Rulers. Neither can the Author prove that Gideon declined this Honour, it being highly probable that he did rule over them to his dying Day, even for the Space of Forty Years.

The Rejection of the Theocracy, which had hitherto obtained, and the Desire of having a King over them, like the Heathen Nations, was undoubtedly a very great Wickedness; but wicked and foolish as it was, many of the Author's Inferences from it cannot be supported.

It is trifling to find Fault with the Term. One whose Authority possibly he would respect, (Cromwell) observed, the Harm lay not in the four Letters K, I, N, G. There have been very good Kings, and very wicked Judges; and the Author, one would think, chooses to be mistaken, when he saith, "The Scripture takes no Notice of David officially as a King, but only as a Man after God's own Heart." The contrary is true; "God chose David, and took him from the Sheep-folds; he brought him to feed Jacob, his People; so he fed them according to the Integrity of his Heart, and guided them by the Skillfulness of his Hands," Psalm lxxviii. 72, 73. He is taken Notice of as King, Psalm xxi. 1—9; and, what must be particularly disagreeable to the Author, he had the Promise of an hereditary Kingdom. I have sworn unto David, "I will build up thy Throne to all Generations; it shall be established for ever as the Moon, and as a faithful Witness in Heaven," Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4, 35.

The Author is not happier when he makes the Almighty enter his "Protest against Monarchical Government," and saith, "this must be true, or the Scripture is false." Now that Kings and Monarchy are not absolutely sinful, and that God Almighty has not protested against their Existence, I suppose will appear sufficiently clear from the following Passage: "Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose;" and then, among other Rules prescribed, he cautions him, "that his Heart may not be lifted up above his Brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the Right Hand, or to the Left, to the end that he may prolong his Days in his Kingdom; he and his Children, in the Midst of Israel," Deut. xvii. 15, 20.

What the Author alledges against Herediditary Succession, may appear very plausible to such as only superficially consider the Matter; but whatever Inconveniences it may cause or imply, the Danger in keeping Government altogether elective will usually be found to over-ballance any Advantage. What the Author calls "the strongest natural Proof against it," does not amount to much; if Nature turns Hereditary Succession into Ridicule, "by frequently giving an Ass for a Lion," it will follow, that whenever Nature gives a wise Son unto a wise Father, she approves Hereditary Succession, and disapproves the Care of a Parent to provide for his Family, whenever she deprives him of Children, or leaves him none but worthless Descendants; but, exclusive of what Nature may do, or not do, upon this Occasion, I would ask, Whether it never happens in Republicks that the Choice falls upon Asses as well as upon Lions? There are Asses among all Ranks of Men, Authors not excepted.

Lest the Author should too much plume himself upon the Wit of his Comparison between original Sin and Hereditary Succession, I would observe, that every Compact made between Parties and their Heirs must be binding on Posterity, and there is neither Hardship nor Absurdity in this; whether the Compact be a prudent and beneficial one is the only Question. I dare say, the Author of Common Sense would now chearfully enter into any Treaty that would secure Liberty and Happiness to himself and all his Descendants, upon the simple Condition, that himself should remain an honest Man as long as he lived; he would not think himself just to his Posterity, if he neglected so easy and honourable an Opportunity to make them all free and happy; assuredly, all his Sneers notwithstanding, he would be willing that Posterity should be as free and happy as himself, if to continue free and honest should be the only Condition.

In human Governments it is impossible to guard against all Inconveniencies; that may be counted the best which has the fewest. Republican Governments are not without their Dangers; and if Men that think themselves born to reign are apt to grow insolent, it is a Misfortune, from which those who have neither Right nor Capacity to rule others, are not at all exempted; and frequently the People, i. e. a few People, have chosen others over them, "the most ignorant and unfit" of any that could possibly be found within their Bounds. Poland is the last Kingdom that remained elective; but though it contains Twenty Millions of Inhabitants, it has long been the most insignificant; and so many Wars have attended their Elections, as, at last, almost annihilated the Kingdom.

After the Civil War, the Crown was, perhaps, more arbitrary than before; for the People, weary to submit to many Tyrants, rather chose to submit to one. The Benefit of that Convulsion was lost, because the Constitution was thrown off of its Basis; at the Revolution, the Constitution and Succession was preserved, and the Liberty of the Nation established more than ever.

There is something remarkable in the History of Holland. They, more than once, declared against Hereditary Succession. To prevent this, after the Demise of William I. to whom they were under such great Obligations, they declared themselves Sovereign States, but were soon brought so low, as to offer themselves to France, and to Queen Elizabeth, and would have been willing to submit to any Master but their old one; and after receiving the Duke of Leicester to administer the Supreme Power, they were still more glad to part with him again, and to make Prince Maurice, of Nassau, (then very young,) their General, who was the proper Heir, whose Father had laid the Foundation of their Republick, and who gained them the Power and Title of a Free State. In 1672 and 1747, the next Heir, King William, and the late Stadtholder, again became their Saviours, and they found the Necessity and Advantage of abolishing the perpetual Edict against a Stadtholder, and to make the Office hereditary in the Males and Females of the Nassau Family.

In following the Author's Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs, I have no Objection to the Preliminary Conditions by him proposed; let him hear me, and let our Readers hear us both, and coolly judge for themselves. I also agree with him, as to the Worth and Importance of the Cause; but if he takes a nearer View, he will find that the present British Empire in America, so far from being "an Eighth Part of the habitable Globe," is, perhaps, not an Eighth Part of North America; but this is immaterial to the Merit of the Cause.

To clear his Way, the Author takes Notice of some Objections to his Plan, and his Answers to them must now be considered: He does not deny "that America has flourished under her Connection with Great Britain," but roundly answers, America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European Power taken any Notice of her. In Reply it may be said, that America, in that Connection, has flourished, is a certain Fact; what the Author advances, at best is mere Supposition and Uncertainty, and there is Reason to believe America owes her Progress to her Connection, because the Colonies of no other Nation are equally flourishing, and the French and Spanish Colonies now wear a very different Aspect since they became British. Besides, if Great Britain had taken no Notice of America, perhaps France might. It is far from being certain, and it is indeed notoriously false, that America, unconnected with Great Britain, might not have been a tempting Object to France; and however this may be, certain it is, and by Common Sense acknowledged, that America flourished in her Connection with Great Britain; and while the Connection is advantageous, it can hardly be worth while to run the Risk of an Experiment to the contrary, only that we may ascertain the Question, whether we might not as well have done without Great Britain. Common Sense also allows, "that Britain has protected us;" but saith, "she would have defended Turkey from the same Motive." Be it so, still I cannot find that it did America any Harm to be protected; and think it most wretched Policy to suppose, that, separated from Great Britain, we should always be at Peace with France and Spain; for (besides that I would rather be at War with both, than with Great Britain,) there is no State but what may be involved in War on its own Account; and it would certainly be very consistent with the Views and Policy of France and Spain to make Conquests, which at once would weaken America and Great Britain; and that they may still have a Desire for Canada and Florida, though they both had declared themselves independent of Great Britain, need not in the least be doubted.

If "Europe, though not England, is the Parent Country of America," this contradicts what the Author asserts, (Page 45.) "It is evident they belong to different Systems, England to Europe, America to itself;" and though he reprobates the Term, Mother Country, because America has not been peopled from England alone, yet all that came into America, wheresoever they came from, came into it as into an English Government, and Thousands of Foreigners, for the Sake of being naturalized, and enjoying the Benefits of a Constitution, on which they set greater Value than this Author. Though not one Third of the Inhabitants of a Province should be of English Descent, yet the Author may be persuaded, their Proportion is still smaller who have no Feelings for Great Britain; who, like him, have renounced their Oath of Allegiance, think Absolute Governments preferable to Limited Monarchy, or any one Plan his Wisdom could contrive, or his forward Zeal obtrude, superior to the British Constitution.

He very justly asks, (Page 37,) "What have we to do with setting all the World at Defiance?" But whom has this Author spared? I should think it good Policy to lessen the Number of our Enemies, and increase that of our Friends; the Author does directly the contrary; he is angry with all "that think well of the European World." He has wrote against every King and Prince in the Universe; he calls his (or at least my) Natural Prince, "a Pharaoh," and "a Royal Brute;" he treats the whole British Nation as our professed Enemy; he abuses the City of London, though it has heartily espoused the American Cause; he abuseth the Pennsylvania Assembly; he inveighs against every Man of Moderation; he avows Principles of Revenge, which would rather suit the Character of a Devil than a Christian; he labours, to his utmost, to render our Quarrels perpetual, and little better than bids Defiance to all Mankind, when he saith, "our present Numbers are sufficient to repel the Force of all the World," (Page 61.) Already none but his few Friends have escaped his Lash, and his Common Sense is very sufficient to warn us of what may be expected, when he and they once become the Ruling Powers. His Challenge, "to shew a single Advantage this Continent can reap from being connected with Great Britain," is fully answered in some Dissertations published some Years ago at Philadelphia; and the Advantages of a perpetual Union are capable of being proved to a Demonstration. In this Connection we have flourished, this Connection is capable of being made reciprocally more advantageous, and I challenge him, in my Turn, to shew, that in any other Situation we can be equally safe, free, and happy.

We must either stand alone, or be connected with some other Power. All wise States secure unto themselves Friends and Allies, and the Author himself gives sufficient Hints, that he does not wish we should stand alone. If we are to have any Connections with other States, political or commercial, the Question will be, with what States it will be most to our Advantage to be in Connection? The Author does not rightly speak it out, but he has an undoubted Eye to France and Spain. I abhor and despise the Thought. France and Spain are the Enemies of our Religion; they will, I hope, never be able to render us the Services that Great Britain hath already; and none but a Madman would look for Protection against Great Britain, to those who so lately lay at Britain's Mercy, and have so evidently been unable to protect themselves.

His Argument in favour of Separation from Great Britain, which he draws from the Time when America was discovered, is very fanciful. At the Time of the Reformation, some French Protestants did, indeed, endeavour to find an Asylum in America, but they were all cut off by the Cruelty of the Spaniards. Every Protestant Settlement was made by the English, and if Popish and Priestly Bigottry persecuted at Home, it must be owned the British Government has opened a Door to the Persecuted, and suffered them to live unmolested in America; however, if the Author will derive any Weight in the present Quarrel, from the Time and Design of Providence in the Discovery of America, he may please himself whenever a Reconciliation should make this Continent, as he saith, "not worth living in." Providence, by the late seasonable Discovery of Otaheite, and the Islands in the North West, graciously meant to open a Sanctuary for him and his Friends.

That "the Authority of Great Britain over this Continent sooner or later must have an End," is asserted without any Proof, and in Opposition to the Continental Congress; that Authority, properly exercised, may continue, with mutual Advantage, to the End of Time. In answer to his Caricatura of those who do not wish for Separation, it may, at least, with equal Justice be said, all that are for Separation, are either interested Men, who expect to be Gainers by the Change, or at least to continue important during the Confusion; weak Men, who having never read much, and, taking up Matters upon the bare Assertions of others, cannot see; prejudiced Men, who will not see; and a certain Sett of hot Men, who think well of nobody but themselves, and those who join with them in Opinion, and those usually also are weak Men who cannot see far off; prejudiced Men, wedded to their own Opinions; and interested Men, who may also be afraid of being called to an Account for Actions too barefaced to be justified upon any View or Principle, political or moral, and who push Matters, not from any Desire to serve the Cause, but because they think there is no other Chance of Safety to themselves. Men deeply in Debt, and of desperate Fortunes and Principles, are always the most likely to raise and keep up publick Confusions.

No Man can feel more for the unhappy innocent Sufferers at Boston, and I wish for a Reconciliation, that the Authors and Advisers of so much Cruelty may be brought to answer for their Conduct to the Justice of a great and generous Nation. The Author, it seems, is of the Number of those who are distant from the Scene, but his lively Imagination and Resentment are happy enough to make him feel and paint all its Horrors.

I shall follow the Author's Arguments against Reconciliation, not as they would appear summed up in a natural Order, but as, out of the Fullness of his Heart, he has chosen to interweave them with every Page of Common Sense.

His main and leading Argument seems to be, That it is impossible to forget or forgive the Injuries America has received; and that whoever had a House burnt, or a Relation killed, if he can make up the Matter after that, "hath the Heart of a Coward, and the Spirit of a Sycophant." I answer, had there been no Quarrel, there would have been no Need of a Reconciliation; more Husbands and Fathers have been killed in the Ministerial Army than of the Americans; and if that could give the Author Satisfaction, the Loss of the Americans hath not gone unavenged. But how inhuman and horrid is the Principle on which he proceeds: Upon his Supposition, two Nations once at War must never again make Peace; but if Humanity cannot set Bounds to the Rage of Man, Providence will; and none are more likely to have everlasting Wars, than those who renounce Peace and Reconciliation for ever. In our little Wars in America with the Natives, few Provinces but what have felt Horrors in Reality, which, in the Account of the Author, are still exaggerated, and yet we were glad to make Peace. In the late War, the Minister of the Elector of Saxony set out with a Resolution to leave nothing but Water and Ground in the Territories of Brandenburgh; the King of Prussia, in his Turn, did all possible Mischief to his Residence and Territories, but after all, both were glad to make Peace. Nature has not deserted our Connection, and the Ocean that always lay between us, will not become impassable by a just Reconciliation. Why should it be thought impossible, that Great Britain may be as just and mild as she has been, and America become as free and happy as she ought in that Connection. The Nation will not be misguided always; the same Ministry may not continue always, and those that would push Matters to the utmost Extremity, whoever they be, and wherever they may live, none will live for ever. It is not generous to say, "that Britain has not manifested the least Inclination towards a Compromise;" the Cause of America has been pleaded by some of the first Men in the Nation, and with an Ability and Strength, which, sooner or later, must answer the End.

If "the Object contended for, ought always to bear some just Proportion to the Expence;" it will also follow, that it is prudent to count the Cost, before we contend for any Object. Whether a thing is just and prudent, whether an Object is attainable, whether the Means of attaining it are at hand, are always very proper Considerations; and nothing will prove a Remedy that is worse than the Disease. The Author next pretends to offer some Arguments, why Reconciliation would be the Ruin of this Continent. They ought to be considered.

The First, he derives from the Negative of the Crown, and the unfriendly Temper of the King. Allowing the latter Part of this Argument the utmost Weight, it would be merely personal and temporary; I am afraid, however, if there is Weight in it at all, it arises from Resentment, to what will be thought undutiful and indecent Treatment. Kings no more than private Men are insensible to personal Injuries. Monarchs, as well as Subjects, may be misinformed or mistaken; but to call the King "the greatest Enemy this Continent hath, or can have," in my Opinion, can only serve to prejudice Subjects against the King, and lead the King to think, that he is looked upon as an Enemy by his Subjects. While the Constitution subsists, the King's Negative must subsist also; and this Power of the King has not ruined England, nor is it the Cause of the present Disturbances in America.

"After Matters are made up, can there be any Doubt the whole Power of the Crown will be exerted to keep America as low and humble as possible;" more probably not. France is very indulgent to Alsace and her American Colonies, to make them in Love with French Government. If we could have no Confidence in English Justice and Generosity, which would be very ungenerous, still we might expect the Minister, by this Time, knows better than easily again to quarrel with America. The King can do no Wrong; let us be reconciled, and formally sue for Justice against those, by whom we shall appear to have been injured.

The Author calls some things ridiculous, that either have no Existence, or do not deserve to be so called. No Youth of Twenty-one ever said in England, "to Six Millions of People, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this Act of yours to be Law." There has been no Minority since Edward VI. who was a wise and good Prince, and far more worthy to reign, than many before and since. Holland was more than once indebted for her Safety and Preservation to Princes of the House of Orange, who were but Youths; and when Democratical Rulers had brought her on the Brink of Ruin, Count Maurice of Nassau, and the late King William, were but Twenty-one when they had the Supreme Command, retrieved their Affairs, and saved the Nation.

His second Argument, in my Opinion, has less Weight; "the best Terms we can obtain, can amount to no more than a Temporary Expedient." Why so? If once we are settled again upon good Terms, such as claimed by the Continental Congress, why should we not remain united on such Terms for ever? The Fear that many of the American Inhabitants would sell their Effects, and quit the Continent, on his own Principles is perfectly idle. Whither would they go? "Every Spot of the Old World being over-run with Oppression." However, if any should not like to live in America, they might transport themselves to some sequestred Part of the Earth, and try the Experiment of forming a more perfect Government, upon the Plan of the Author.

But "the most powerful of all Arguments is, that nothing but Independence can keep the Peace of the Continent, and preserve it inviolate from Civil Wars." As this is Speculation rather than Argument, what if the contrary should prove the Case; and upon the very Proposal of it, somewhere or other, "a Revolt should happen more fatal than all the Malice of Great Britain." Should this ever prove the Case, the Man will have much to answer for, whose Rancour and Rashness has hurried on so great a Calamity. "It is but seldom that our first Thoughts are truly correct;" and I imagine the whole Pamphlet contains chiefly first Thoughts of the Author.

"The Colonies have manifested a Spirit of good Order and Obedience to the Continental Congress," while they laboured at a Reconciliation. Whether the Temper of the People at large, will be the same, if their Aim and Conduct should be directly the reverse, is a Question of great Moment. The Fears, "that one Colony will strive for Superiority over another," will not appear so very childish, when the Conduct of some leading Men is duly considered.

When the Author saith, "The Republicks of Europe are all (and we may say always) in Peace; Holland and Swisserland are without War, Foreign or Domestic;" he declares War against Truth, and must have a very low Opinion of the Americans, if he could think to mislead them by such palpable Falshoods. The Republicks of Venice and Genoa have been involved in great Wars; and though Republicks have little or no Liberty, Holland has been involved in most Wars in this Century, and lost all their Barrier Towns, and Bergen-op-Zoom, in one of the last. The History of Swisserland also would furnish him Instances of War, sufficient to prove, that the most determined and prudent People may suffer by a few Firebrands; and whatever Advantages there may be in Republican Governments, all Political Writers will allow, that Monarchical can more easily enter into Negotiations, and carry them on with greater Speed, Secrecy, and Success.

I have nothing to say about his Plan to form a Continental Government; I wish it may never take Place, and therefore will not point out the Weakness of a Scheme, which, undoubtedly, will defeat itself, if ever it should be tried to be carried into Execution.

To hasten the Execution of his Plan, the Author urges, that otherwise some Massanello may gather together the Desperate, and informs us, that this Thomas Ancillo prompted the People of Naples to revolt, and, in the Space of a Day became King. Massanello never was King, but a popular Leader, and his true History is not uninstructive; he headed a Mob, raised on Account of a Duty laid on Fruit, and, driven to Despair by a brutish Answer of the Vice-Re, bidding them to sell their Wives and Children in Payment, at first, while he was moderate, he became very formidable, and a solemn Treaty was entered into by him and the Vice-Re, and publickly sworn to in the Church; next he became intoxicated with Power, or even delirious, and raved against his own Followers; he was then shot, in or about a Church, and immediately as much execrated by the Mob as before he had been followed and applauded.

I should hardly take Notice of his Declarations against Reconciliation and Peace, were it not to point out some Expressions which ought to characterize the Author. To say, "That the Almighty has implanted in us inextinguishable Feelings" to keep up Resentment and Hatred; and that they are "the Guardians of his Image in our Heart," is really flying in the Face of God Almighty. It surely must shock every considerate Person, to see that ascribed to God Almighty, which is a Disgrace to Man; and if it is not applicable to the Assertion, that Passion and Hatred are the Guardians of the Divine Image, I am unacquainted with any Proposition that deserves to be called a Doctrine of Devils; Justice will always be the more perfect and impartial if uninfluenced by Affections, and the Touches of Affections, whether Love or Hatred, above any thing have a Tendency to warp Justice.

There are many things which I pass over, not because I think them true, or unanswerable, but because it may be unseasonable to shew their Absurdity; it is impossible, however, that the following should escape any considerate Reader's Notice.

"Our present Numbers are sufficient to repel the Force of the whole World." Doubtful as this may appear to many, I am perfectly convinced of the Truth of it, if ever it should happen that all the World should at once bring all their Force against us, which we may be well persuaded will never happen. There is no Potentate now upon Earth that would seriously affirm his Numbers are sufficient to repel the Forces of all the World. To his Maxim, "No Nation ought to be without a Debt," I add, nor a Fund to pay it. I apprehend National Debts can be of very little Service, without a proportionable National Credit.

If any Man has a Mind to believe that "the Navy of England, at this Time, is not worth above Three Millions and a Half Sterling," for me he may; and so also if hence he should conclude the Author of Common Sense pays very little Regard to his Readers, in palming Assertions upon them which they may well doubt whether he can believe himself.

If "a Twelvemonth ago any common Pirate might have laid the City of Philadelphia under instant Contribution, nay, any daring Fellow, in a Brig of fourteen or sixteen Guns, might have robbed the whole Continent," it seems surprizing that it was never attempted. Perhaps others have a greater Dread of the British Navy than our Author; perhaps to this Dread we were indebted for our Safety. Is it more surprizing that we were so very weak a Year ago, as to be at the Mercy of a single Brig, or that we are since grown so strong, as to be able to cope with, and expect to get the better of, the whole British Navy?

"If America had a Twentieth Part of the Naval Force of Britain, she would be by far an Over-match for her." Supposing the British Navy to consist of Two Hundred Vessels, the Twentieth Part would be Ten Vessels; a great Disproportion, truly! But, according to Common Sense, the Existence of even these Ten Vessels is still liable to an IF; but if we had them, who can doubt, that, as the Whole is equal to all its Parts, so a Twentieth Part must also be equal to the Whole.

To unite the Sinews of Commerce and Defence is certainly sound Policy; but whether stopping all Trade and Intelligence will bring about, or keep up this Union, Time must shew.

That with "the Increase of Commerce England lost its Spirit," I suppose the Author does not mean to prove, from the History of the last War, and from the Risks Great Britain runs at present in the Quarrel with her Colonies; it will not follow that the more Men have to lose, the less they are willing to venture.

I come now to the many strong and striking Reasons, as the Author is pleased to call them, that "nothing can settle our Affairs more expediously than an open and determined Declaration for Independence;" he mentions four; how strong and striking three of them may appear must be left with every Reader, but what he calls the fourth is no Reason at all.

The first he grounds on the Custom of Nations, when any two are at War, for some other Power, not engaged in the Quarrel, to step in as Mediator, and bring about the Preliminaries of a Peace. This sometimes is the Case, but then it is between two contending Nations, that are both acknowledged independent by other States, and more especially by the State that offers a Mediation. Upon his own Principle we must be acknowledged independent by others, before any Nation can directly interfere; and I apprehend our Author does not sufficiently distinguish between two very different Things, viz. our declaring ourselves independent, and our being acknowledged and treated so by others. However, the Author seems to have some Thought of "Preliminaries of Peace," very inconsistent with the Feelings that he saith, (Page 60,) distinguish us from the Herd of common Animals; but perhaps Peace will not be so disgracing when introduced among us by foreign Nations.

The Author's second Reason deserves very great Attention; it runs thus: "It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any Kind of Assistance, if we mean only to make use of that Assistance for repairing the Breach, and strengthening the Connection between Britain and America, because these Powers would be sufferers by the Consequence." I apprehend here is much more meant than expressed. I shall only make some very general Remarks:

- 1st, Assistance from France and Spain against Great Britain is here expressly avowed; this Avowal of Assistance from our natural, hereditary, Popish Enemies, will be considered in a very serious Light by Thousands of thinking Persons, in Britain, America, and every Protestant Country.

- 2dly, To obtain this Assistance, the Author would renounce our Connection with Britain, i. e. with Protestants, our Parent State, and, at least, Numbers among them, who have been and are our Friends.

- 3dly, In his Opinion it is certain we cannot obtain any Assistance from them, unless we declare ourselves independent, and he would have us apply to France and Spain, on purpose to be able to effect a Separation from Great Britain for ever.

A Variety of political, moral, and conscientious Considerations here crowd in upon me, which I must suppress; but on the Supposition that his Proposal to some may seem just and prudent, I would still hint a few Doubts as to its answering the End. I would ask,

Is the Author sure, that, if we declare ourselves independent of Great Britain, we shall obtain Assistance for asking for it, from France and Spain, and what is it to be? Is this Assistance to consist of Men? That would be needless, as we have a Force of our own "capable to repel all the World;" or of Money? But that again we do not want, seeing we can make as much as we please; or in Ships? But this also we shall have no Occasion for, as ten Ships, (which we certainly can fit out, if any at all) in our Author's Opinion, are an Over-match for all the British Navy. But be all this as it may, can France or Spain publickly avow our Cause, without unavoidably entering into War with Great Britain? Supposing it in their Power, will they run the Risk of it, only to raise unto themselves a most formidable Rival in independent Colonies? Will they become our Protectors upon cheaper Terms than Great Britain, and can they afford it?

Supposing we obtain Assistance from France or Spain, will not their first and most natural Request be, (as it was Queen Elizabeth's to the Dutch, and by them complied with,) to be put in Possession of some of our Sea Ports. Auxiliaries have frequently become Masters; a small Number of Troops and Ships could not effect for us any great Matters, and a large one might bring about greater Matters than we might wish.

Whether the shrewdest Politicians dwell in France, Spain, Britain, or America, I will not take upon me to say; but I should think the Supposition very natural, that France or Spain might afford the Colonies all the secret Assistance they could, without entering into a War, probably with a View to keep up the Ball, weaken both Parties, and, in the End, to reap some Benefit from the Folly of the Parties engaged in this unnatural Quarrel. Large Promises, undoubtedly, would never be wanting. But it will surprize many, no doubt, that Common Sense would break off the Connection with Great Britain, because to her "America is only a secondary Object, and she hath never done us any good but for her own Sake," and proposes a Connection with France and Spain, in Expectation they would make our Happiness not their secondary but primary Consideration, and assist us, not in the ungenerous Manner Great Britain has done, for their own Sake, but from the nobler Design of protecting the Liberty and Independence of America.

If his third Reason hath any Truth or Weight, "we must, at present, in the Eye of Foreign Nations, be considered as Rebels;" and, adds he, "the Precedent is somewhat dangerous to their Peace, for Men to be in Arms under the Name of Subjects." I answer, Foreign Nations and Writers, even in this Case, make a great Distinction between a People that profess Subjection, while they only struggle for Redress of what they think Grievances, and those who altogether renounce Allegiance and Dependence. Foreign Nations formerly called the Hungarian Insurgents, and lately the Corsicans, Malcontents; but all Nations (except France) called the Scotch, in 1745, Rebels. In the Author's Mode of Reasoning, however, as we are now in Arms, and "common Understanding cannot so easily solve the Paradox as we that are on the Spot," in the Eyes of other Nations we must be looked upon as Rebels; well, and what follows? "The Precedent is somewhat dangerous to themselves;" then, I suppose, we are not to expect any Trade from or with them, while they look upon us in this Light, nor look to them for Assistance. This the Author seems tacitly to look upon as the Case, and an Inconvenience; and how is it to be remedied? Why, that they may not look upon us as Rebels while we still profess Allegiance, and promise all we can promise, to get Redress, we are next to disown all Dependence and Allegiance, and then, of Course, the Powers who looked upon the Precedent as dangerous to see Subjects in Arms, will be convinced, that, now we have broke through every Tie, and renounced all Dependence, we can no longer be Rebels, by openly commending our Proceedings, and taking up Arms in our Favour. Rare Reasoning in Common Sense! That Foreign Nations may be convinced we seek nothing but Redress from our hitherto King and Parent State, we are to shake off all Allegiance, and engage with the Enemies of our Nation in War against him, we always called our Sovereign. Rare Reasoning, truly! O Common Sense!

What he calls his fourth Reason, is evidently no Reason at all, but only a Proposal to publish a Manifesto of our Sufferings, an Apology for our Conduct, and an Offer to live peaceably with all Foreign Courts. — The Continental Congress has ordered a Narrative of American Sufferings to be published, which undoubtedly is very proper and necessary, but whether in Foreign Courts it will be productive of any more than Contempt of the British Minister, and cold Pity and Praises of the Americans, Time must shew.

After the Example of the Author of Common Sense, I shall now conclude with a few Miscellaneous Observations. Though it was his Wish that this Declaration should be made immediately, the Winter is past, and, upon his own Plan, we may safely conclude, so will the next Summer before his Scheme can be brought even upon the Carpet. Every Colony must declare itself independent, before, agreeable to his Advice, they can all meet in Continental Conference, and throw the respective Independence of each Province into one Common Stock. Should any two or three Colonies have an Aversion to Independence, and the Arguments of Common Sense be thought insufficient only in one of the Middle or more important Colonies, a Division instantly takes Place; and if the others should attempt to reduce the refractory Colony, an intestine War is begun, and may spread far more dangerous, as the Author justly observes, than all the Malice of Great Britain; and before every Colony has determined for itself, and fixed upon a Continental Conference, many Things may happen.

Supposing this Independency is declared, what may be the Consequence? I must apprehend the Consequence must be very serious, and without any Spirit of Prophecy, it may be presumed the Effects will be very interesting.

In America, those that shall set it up, will, doubtless, make Use of every Means their Art and Power can suggest to maintain it; those that are of a contrary Opinion will not like the Proceedings; those that are for, and those that are against it, will respectively make it a Common Cause. All that love a limited Monarchy, the British Constitution, all that think themselves still bound by the Oath of Allegiance, all that would rather wait for Justice from British and Protestant Generosity, than throw themselves into the Arms of France and Spain, all that dread a long Contest, or are fearful of the Event, all that are conscientiously against all War and Fighting, all that look upon this pretended Remedy as worse than the Disease, will dislike Independency.

When the Czar of Russia was hemmed in by the Turkish Army, and Charles pressed the Grand Vizir to avail himself of his Distress, and deprive him of his Empire, the Vizir foolishly asked, And who then shall be Emperor of Russia? Before our present Connections are given up, it is possible there may be some Men in every Province weak enough to look about and ask, Who shall be our Governors? As the Author is entirely for Elective Governments, he cannot think such a Question unreasonable; to exchange even a bad Thing for another as bad, cannot quit cost. If our Government is not Democratical, upon the Plan of the Author, it will be good for nothing; and if it be Democratical, possibly we may meet with some Troubles in Elections; and to ease the People of the Trouble of demolishing the Crown, perhaps some one may arise and take away that Trouble, and then rule with a heavy Hand. What has happened may happen again. If I am not greatly mistaken, some of the leading Men in some Provinces [*] already sat, and voted in a Provincial Congress without being chosen by the People.

When the News arrives in Foreign Courts, how will it be received? The Corsicans, in our Days, offered to submit to any one that would ease them from the truly intolerable Yoke of the Genoese, but without Effect. They declared themselves independent, fought bravely for forty Years, and are now a despicable Province to France. In the Corsican Civil Wars divers Nations interfered, but none but the English openly countenanced their Cause, and the English no longer, or further, than suited their own Convenience; and their History and Fate too plainly shew, how little Reason a discontented or oppressed People may have to depend on Foreign Assistance and Favour.

What may be the Issue of the Contest none can tell. "The Events of War," saith Common Sense, "are uncertain;" but we may expect it will be long. Holland struggled about Seventy, and Switzerland Three Hundred Years, before they were universally acknowledged Free States, but then they had not a Force sufficient to repel all the World, though England, instead of being against them, did Holland considerable Service by destroying the Spanish Armada.

If America proceeds upon the Author's Plan, and declares against all Reconciliation and Connections with Great Britain, what must follow is obvious. She will either fight till she brings America to her Terms, or America must fight till she brings Great Britain to her's. Perhaps neither the one nor the other is impossible; but how much Time and Treasure, and how many Lives it may cost, none can tell. In short, our Differences must end either in the Overthrow of the one or the other, or must be made up by Treaty at last. The Event may be dubious, but there can be no Doubt that Twenty Years Quietness, (were it only a Cessation of Arms,) would add Three Millions to the Inhabitants of British America; and whosoever carries on determined and just Measures with the least Risk, and greatest Prudence, bids fairer to ensure Success, than those who precipitately hurry on Matters to a Crisis. If Time could be gained for the most violent in Great Britain, &c. to cool, it would do more towards healing our Difference, than either Force or Reason has done hitherto; but, as Mr. Burke, in his Speech, most justly observes, "In Civil Wars great Difficulties always attend moderate Men, who advise to lenient Measures; their Moderation is attributed to Want of Zeal, and their Fears for the Publick Safety to a Want of Spirit." Against all such, Men who have Ends to answer, and Views to serve, raise a formidable Outcry, but the Tumult soon subsides. Time will, in the long-run, prove a Friend to Reason, place every Man's Views, Character, and Actions, in a true Light, and fix everlasting Disgrace upon all such as artfully would have built their Greatness on their Country's Ruin; and he that is higher than the Highest, will finally render unto every Man, whether King or Subject, as his Works have been, whether they have been good or bad. Six Things he is said to hate, and the Seventh is even an Abomination to him, "It is he that soweth Discord among Brethren."

FINIS.

Notes

*
In Georgia.
↵

The TRUE MERITS OF A Late TREATISE, printed in AMERICA, INTITLED, COMMON SENSE, Clearly pointed out.

Addressed to the INHABITANTS of AMERICA.

By a late Member of the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, a Native of a REPUBLICAN STATE.

LONDON, Printed for W. NICOLL, at No 51, St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCCLXXVI. [Price One Shilling.]

PREFACE.

FOR Two Millions of People to renounce a solemn Oath, — to change the Government of Thirteen extensive Provinces, — to wage War with the most formidable Power of the Universe, are Objects than which it is hardly possible to conceive any more important, or in which it can be more necessary that Conscience, sound Policy, and Prudence, should have a fair Hearing.

In all free Governments it is usual that the Rulers give an Assurance, upon Oath, that they will rule according to Law, and they that are ruled, that they will pay Obedience according to Law unto their Rulers. — It is evident that the Obligation is reciprocal; but what is to be done, when a Failure is charged upon Ruler or Subject, and either or both Parties plead that they act strictly according to the Constitution acknowledged by both, is a very arduous Question; and whether, upon the Supposition that the Constitution has not been abolished, but wounded by those in Power, Subjects are entirely discharged from Allegiance; or, in other Words, because the King, or Legislature, did one illegal Act, Subjects may renounce all Dependence on them for ever, may deserve a peculiar Discussion.

The present unhappy Dispute has this very disagreeable Circumstance attending it—That it is not a Question between Crown and Subject, Nobles and King, an Upper House and a Lower; but that all the Branches of the British Legislature act in Concert. Formerly the Barons took Part with the Crown, or Commons, as best suited their own Interest. Sometimes the Commons may have encroached on the Prerogative, as that has too often on the Liberty of the Subject; but no Instance readily occurs to me, where the three Branches of the Legislature, and an extensive Part, not of the British Realms, but of the Empire, were the contending Parties.

Whatever may be the Sense and Resolution of a Community, as to the present Force of an Oath taken at any Time by them, I apprehend (as every Man is to give an Account of himself to God) no Man can be conscientiously freed from the Obligation, but by the Conviction of his own Conscience, that the Oath he once took is no longer binding. The Man that renounces an Oath lightly, makes very free with God Almighty and himself; and the Man that acts contrary to what, in his Conscience, he thinks still binding, will, at some Time or other, find it difficult to clear himself from some very heavy Charge.

To alter the general Plan of Government in an Extent of Fifteen Hundred Miles; to take away the Center-Stone, by which it was hitherto cemented, is a great Undertaking; and upon the Supposition of its being just, prudent, and necessary, so many Circumstances will be found to be considered, and so many different Objects and Interests to be adjusted, that I should be tempted to think him a very hasty Man, who would take large Strides and little Time in so important a Business.

As to being at War with Great Britain I do not wonder; it is rather a pleasing Consideration to such as delight in War, and place Virtue in perpetual Hatred and Resentment. Most certainly a Man can think himself in no Danger, "with a Force sufficient to repel all the World;" neither do I wonder that some Men think "a Twentieth Part of the Strength of the British Navy would be a great Over-match for the Whole;" but I really do wonder that the Author of Common Sense acknowledges the Americans have not this Twentieth Part,—and yet he seriously advises them to engage in a Sea War.

It seems surprizing, that a Proposal of Independency should pass unanim••verted; the Remarks here offered are some of the weaker Things that can be said against this Scheme; this is not a Time to set some stronger Arguments against it in the fullest Light; the most effectual Answer to that boasted Performance has been given by the Congress of South Carolina, in the Establishment of a temporary Constitution, which may well be considered as the Counter-Part of the Plan offered by the Author of Common Sense.

These Hints are submitted to public View, to try whether they may be as serviceable, as some, for whose Judgment the Author has a Regard, seem to expect. The Author always professed, as he now does, a firm Persuasion, that the Acts which gave Rise to the present Dispute are illegal and oppressive; he has no Intimacy with, nor indeed is he acquainted with, a single Person that would take upon him their Defence; he is well persuaded, that the Measures taken by the Continental Congress must ensure them the Praises of Nations, and of those yet unborn; he heartily wisheth every Man may exert himself in a proper Manner in so great a Cause, and thinks it would be for the Benefit of America, if those who cannot go the same Length with others, while they wish to see America redressed, might be treated with Tenderness, and be made useful to the Cause, consistent with their own Principles. He looks upon an entire Separation from Great Britain not as a last Remedy, but as a new and more dangerous Disease; and earnestly prays that America, in that Connexion, may soon, and for ever enjoy that Constitution and Freedom, which her Representatives so justly claim; and as every Man must expect his Share in the Troubles of the Times, if he himself must meet with any, may it be because he holds a Regard to Conscience, and public and private Justice, essential to the Character of a Patriot, and the Cause of America, too just and sacred to be promoted by any Action, "which Justice or Christianity must condemn," and, in the Language of the Continental Congress, he most sincerely wisheth, that the Annals of America, or any of its Provinces, may never be stained by the Recital of any such Actions."

Information about this book

Title statement

The true merits of a late treatise, printed in America, intitled, Common sense: clearly pointed out. Addressed to the inhabitants of America. By a late member of the Continental Congress, a native of a republican state.

Late Member of the Continental Congress.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/3441

ID [isbn10]

110600440X

ID [isbn13]

9781106004406

ID [TCP]

K008777.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3304946824

ID [ECSS]

0464001800

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— The true merits of a late treatise, printed in America, intitled, Common sense: clearly pointed out. Addressed to the inhabitants of America. By a late member of the Continental Congress, a native of a republican state., Late Member of the Continental Congress.. viii,44p. ; 8⁰. London :: printed for W. Nicoll,. 1776.. [Sometimes attributed to Henry Middleton.] [Reproduction of original from the Harvard University Houghton Library.] [Adams, 76-96] [Sabin, 97127] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCN14152.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.